SuaveSocialist said:
setsunatenshi said:
1. no, not all types of feminism even pretend to strive for equality, that is an inane statement. there are plenty of people who would call themselves feminists and actually advocate women supremacy. i don't have any ground to stand here and determine who the 'true feminists' are, so, as I said before, if someone tells me they are a feminist I will take them at their word
2. i have expanded in a later comment on the patriarchy theory, so no, I don't agree it exists in today's western societies. It certainly did exist at some point in time where there was actual discrimination of genders, not anymore, not today. actual discrimination based on gender is in most places punished by law.
3. yes, of course it's a good thing. no, it does not depend on feminism, that is a baseless claim. it's simply a better term someone who actually wants true equality of opportunity for all people. If you need to specify that it's based on gender, you might be saying you're comfortable with discriminating for some other reason (race? religious views? eye color? sports team? nationality?)
4. as stated in further discussion with him, you could see we came to understand exactly what each other's points were on all of this. but to clarify in case you won't read, the comparison was an ad absurdum, showing that it's not fair to tell someone they are a feminist or communist (or whatever else) just because someone agrees with a part of what the entire ideology stands for. feminism is not contained by equality of gender anymore than communism is contained in agreeing with a non class based society. there's a ton more than that.
|
1. If one identifies as a feminist and advocate female supremacy, one is either lying or wrong----just as one who advocates violence as a means to an end is not a pacifist, no matter how much one would insist whilst doing the Frank Castle all over the neighborhood. Words mean things, and the meaning exists independently of people misusing them.
2. Like I said, it is the degree of its existence to which where it can be argued for and against; arguing its existence as feminists define it is not incorrect in of itself and your point here was irrelevant in its entirety.
3. That is not what I said. I said it would fall short of being achieved if the gender aspect falls short, just as it would falll short of being achieved if any other aspect you've mentioned falls short. For an egalitarian society to exist, all must pursued---including feminism. Without, an egalitarian state cannot exist.
4. That's what feminism is. Dictionary, dude. Someone else dug it up (in an inept attempt to argue against me) and proved it. You're simply denying reality---but reality exists whether you accept it or not. Your entire position is self-defeating considering the very language we're using demonstrably refutes it.
|
1- i am not the arbitrer of who is the true feminist, nor it's my job to discern between all the people who call themselves feminists. as several people have pointed out, the most vocal so called representatives of feminism today are pretty objectionable people with ideas I am absolutely against. that is who we are all arguing against. if you somehow believe these people don't represent you, then go and argue against them, not us.
2- please point to specific laws that are keeping women opressed in western developed societies nowadays in comparison to men. i don't care about feelings on the subject, only facts. as I said before, I could point to specific laws that discriminate in favor of women. can't think of a single one that does the exact opposite.
3- i meant a general you, not you specifically. if we both agree people should be treated fairly, no matter what gender, race, etc, then why would you need another word so say you are an egalitarian? or a humanist? feminism starts from the principle that women are somehow begining at an inferiority stage and trying to reach equality. I do not agree with this statement at all, which makes the concept of feminism and that word meaningless in today's western societies.
4- you are trying to do what's called the 'argument from definition'. not sure you did it intentionally or not, but I don't fall into such basic logic fallacies. there's feminism as a word (as it was conceived, a product of it's time) and there's feminism as a movement. the actions of current proponents of feminism don't match the definition you want to attach to. Where in the definition of National + Socialism is there anything about gas chambers and genocide? I argue against the actions of the current 'popular' feminists, not against dictionaries.
